Troubles close to home

For the European Union, nothing, but nothing, is going right just now. Troubles come not singly but in battalions, as a king of Denmark poetically put it. So it would seem for the EU.

An announcement by the Brussels regional government that it no longer supports the European Commission’s ambitions to develop a site on the eastern edge of Brussels for office accommodation is small beer compared to the eurozone’s difficulties with Greece or the battle over the EU’s budget for 2014-20, but it adds to the sense that nothing is going right, not even the small stuff. The uncertainty created by the Brussels region’s volte-face will, at the very least, make it harder for the Commission’s leadership to retain the co-operation of staff, and other problems may follow.

What is disturbing about the regional government’s change of heart is less the substance than the manner in which it was arrived at and delivered. The Commission had concluded an agreement with the regional government in 2008, which included a sensible declaration that not all EU offices should be concentrated in one part of Brussels. Some decentralisation was desirable, if only to spread the burden of commuting (whether by public transport or private car) and keep office rents in check. I supported this idea, though I was not persuaded that the particular site subsequently earmarked for development – at Delta, in the Brussels suburb of Auderghem – was the best location, either for the development of the city, or for the Commission. Short-term convenience seemed to be distorting the Commission’s thinking: the site is owned by the federal government and is close to existing Commission offices at Beaulieu.

Nevertheless, the regional government supported the Commission in the choice of Delta – until the recent U-turn, which the Commission learnt about from reading an interview that Charles Picqué, the head of the regional government, gave to a Belgian newspaper. It was only a week later, at a meeting on 7 February with Maroš Šefcovic, the European commissioner for administration, that Picqué communicated directly to the Commission that he was no longer in favour of it developing Delta.

Hardened cynics will say that this shambles is entirely in keeping with the history of non-communication or miscommunication between the EU institutions and the Brussels authorities. They can point to decades of development in the European quarter that lacked co-ordination or co-operation; the physical landscape bears the scars.

The cynics are right, except that things were supposed to have changed. Šefcovic’s predecessor in charge of handling the administration dossier, Siim Kallas, had devoted both time and energy to improving relations. The mood music did appear to change, briefly. The city authorities seemed to have woken up to the disadvantages of their disregard. They had realised that it was not in their own best interest to continue a policy of benign (or malign) neglect of the EU institutions, which together employ tens of thousands of people in Brussels and attract the employment of thousands more.

What is depressing about the recent episode is that it shows both parties reverting to mutually suspicious type. The levels of trust on both sides are appallingly low. The Commission does not trust the regional government to deliver on its promises – for instance, on reducing traffic in and around the European quarter. The regional government does not trust the EU institutions to have a care for the greater good of Brussels.

It is hard to see a way out of this destructive cycle. But it does not make sense to let Brussels and the EU drift further apart. Neither side would benefit, and Brussels residents, wherever they come from and whomever they are employed by, would suffer. The economic health of the city and the sound organisation of the EU institutions require an improvement in relations.

Here, then, are some modest suggestions. First, EU employees should engage more with Brussels politics. Second, there should be better co-ordination among the EU institutions of relations with the Belgian authorities. The Commission is the biggest employer, but should not be left to handle relations with the Brussels government alone. The European Parliament must pull more weight, and Herman Van Rompuy, the president of the European Council, whose understanding of Belgian politics will be better than most, since he is a former Belgian prime minister, could usefully co-ordinate the EU’s stance. He might bring into the negotiating mix the cost of policing EU summits, whose greater frequency has increased the financial burden on the Belgian authorities.

On the Belgian side, Elio Di Rupo, the prime minister, is well-placed to take the situation in hand, being of the same political family as Picqué and Laurette Onkelinx, who is also a player. The separation of layers of federal, regional and communal government has, in the past, defeated the EU. Di Rupo should seek to reduce the differences between those layers.

The Belgian authorities should take note that the mood has changed on the EU side. Budgets for administrative spending are being cut back. Staff numbers are being reduced. It is in Brussels’ own best interests to repair relations swiftly.